TED Conversations

M D
  • M D
  • Dubliln (County)
  • Ireland

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Could women become extinct were it not for their obvious neccessity in reproduction?

Throughout history there has been a shameful tradition of women being undermined in society. In the origins of countless civilisations, culture has quickly unfolded to place women as second class citizens. One has to wonder why this is?
The answer lies in amongst the irrefutable cornacopia of differences between men and women both physically and pschologically. There is no dividing factor amongst humans quite like it, even race is just an issue over a bit more skin pigmentation. (Bear with me, I promise I'm not a sexist)
Women have different bone structures to men, different organs in them, different brains and much more. The difference between gender is paramount to being a different species. If you were to take a homo sapien female and a neanderthal male and asked to compare them at glance to at a homo sapien male which would actually look more similar: the one with the weird forehead and bad posture or the one with their genetalia inside of their body, the two lactating bulges at the chest and the curvy waistline?
The problem however, with this comparrisson is that the neanderthals are extinct, as are every other species of human. It seems that in evolution when two similar creatures occupy the same habitat, one eventually emerges dominant and one dies out. If humans magically became capable of asexual reproduction would the same thing happen?
However, I don't think women deserve to die out. I think they add a diversity to civilisation that we are only starting to see in recent decades. So what if women aren't on average as strong or fast as men? Is there a massive flaw in the laws of evolution? Just because one varient shows relavent strenghts in survival of the fittest scenarios it doesn't just mean the entire species should just upgrade and replace itself. Variety is the very basis on what evolution depends on. Women have many other and equally valuable ways to contribute to mankind and we must celebrate them.

Topics: evolution
+2
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Jun 14 2012: I think it's the reversal actually Michael, I think man would become extinct. We're useless we just provide the sperm. This here is an interesting process you should read, if females could do this, there would be no need for man, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis
    • M D

      • 0
      Jun 14 2012: Thanks for showing interest firstly and also for the article, perhaps I should start worrying over the bit that said "This type of reproduction has been induced artificially in a few species".
      Also it's very open minded and scientific to suggest this could go both ways. Apparently during the hunter-gatherer eras men would 9/10 times come back from hunting empty handed while women provided for us all with gathering other foods.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.